socratessmith wrote:Jeebus Crikes, all of this text citation. All of these minute details. All of this classical Buddhist eel-wriggling. This rubric from Cruel Theory | Sublime Practice may be useful. I assume most of you will cry "too obscure!" or "too French!" or whatever. But maybe one or two of you will see the merit of the basic contention, and be thereby helped. (And before you accuse me of sour grapes: I am fluent in reading Pali.)

I'm not sure if you haven't just come here to try and sell some books or gain converts. You're not one of the authors are you?

Completely predictable, and useless, Buddhist responses to a feasible argument directly related to a practice you both frequently engage in.

Throw away your Buddhist books and use your brains!

Hi socratessmith I'm not sure how my post/un-answered question could be seen as a "Buddhist" response to your own post, which to me seemed like gobbledegook. Have you just come to make evangelical proclamations and peacock your superior intelligence? What was the point you were trying to make in the last post and what is x-Buddhism?

OMG! The millions of words written about the 'Non-self, No self, not self' thing..... we all have our own understanding about it, or idea of what it means. It is something so profound that only a Buddha can understand and then teach it.....and what does he teach? Not to discuss and think about it...but to do the practice.....vipassana meditation....and the knowledge will come to you.....experiential knowledge....not intellectual postulations.If you people spent as much time on the cushion as on the forums you wouldn't need this website.

It is significant that, when the Buddha makes such statements as these, he uses a different Pali verb ‘to be’ than the usual one. The vast majority of uses ofthe verb employ the Pali ‘hoti’; this is the ordinary type of being, implying existence in time and space: I am happy; she is a fine horse; the house is small; the days are long. In these passages just quoted, when the Buddha makes his rarebut emphatic metaphysical statements, he uses the verb ‘atthi’ instead. It still means ‘to be’ but some Buddhist scholars (notably Peter Harvey) insist that thereis a different order of being implied: that it points to a reality which transcends the customary bounds of time, space, duality and individuality.

Warder makes a similar distinction between the verbs as and hú in his Introduction to Pali. (cf. pgs 30-31)

Hi pulga

I'm a little puzzled by your assertion above. Are you saying that Warder's description of the as and hū verbs shows that as verbs are employed in metaphysical statements. I could not find this in the 2nd and 3rd editions of Warder, so unless I've missed something rather esoteric in the 1st ed, this is what Warder says at pp 30 -31 of those 2 editions -

The Verb as

The verb as, " to be ” , asserts with emphasis the existence ofsomething or somebody. (On the other hand hoti is not emphaticand is used also to state attributes : the minister is a priest,etc., and of something which happens or “ becomes ” : a manis/becomes pleased, etc. The usual and more emphatic verbfor “ becomes ” , " comes into existence ” , however, is uppajjati—third conjugation : see Lesson 10). The verb as is veryirregular ; the present tense is as follows :—

Let's not forget that whatever is said of the hū verbs would also apply to the bhū verbs, which figure most prominently as bhūta. There is nothing quite distinct between as and bhū (in terms of purported transcendentalness in the former and mundaneness in the latter), going by the SN 22.62 analysis that looks at one such bhū verb (ie pātubhūta (become made manifest)) -

Whatever form, bhikkhus, has been born, has become manifest: the term, label, and description ‘is’ applies to it, not the term ‘was’ or the term ‘will be.’

Given that the 3 scenarios in SN 22.62 are also discussed in the Ananda Sutta (2) you cited (SN 22.38), I have a bit of a difficulty understanding your point -

In the Suttas the present -- which is described as the manifestation of pancakhandha -- exists, the past and future do not exist (cf. Ánandasutta SN 22.38). But note the plasticity of the present, i.e. the thickness it has depending upon what is manifest (the 'present' moment, the 'present' minute, the 'present' hour, etc.). We're dealing with different orders of being. The present which transcends time is that of a higher order than the temporal parts that constitute it, and while the past and the future cannot be said to exist as particulars they get a footing in existence by being a part of something else - another set of pancakhandha - of just that higher order: a part to whole relationship. The present always exists: even when dealing with particulars within time, the present is equiprimordial with the past and the future: the present is "real", the past and future "imaginary" . And of course any whole is a part of something else of a yet higher order.

Is this perhaps informed by Ven Nanavira's conception of ākālika? I ask not to dismiss, but simply to acknowledge that I'm too dense to cut through his very dense writings on this.

Completely predictable, and useless, Buddhist responses to a feasible argument directly related to a practice you both frequently engage in.

Throw away your Buddhist books and use your brains!

Hi and good morning - I'v no idea what that post was all about, but in my present reading, a book of good old buddhist-wisdom (collection of Ajhan Chas teachings) - he points out many times, that books and all this babbeling about the teachings is not wise, in fact I get the feeling he ment that it was down right stupid. So I partially agree with you that its about time to not throw away the books (it's easier to just let it go on the nearest table, easier than trowing it away ..) And start doing the real job, witch is to sit down and not read your own brain, but read directly from the heart.

So, maybe the best thing to do, is to let go of books neatly on the table - throw away the brain, and stay put with our hearts in silence

Socratessmith,Perhaps a more politically acceptable expression of your point can be found in the Kalama Sutta:

The criterion for acceptance10. "Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.

Crazy cloud wrote:Hi and good morning - I'v no idea what that post was all about, but in my present reading, a book of good old buddhist-wisdom (collection of Ajhan Chas teachings) - he points out many times, that books and all this babbeling about the teachings is not wise...

Well why are you reading his book? Why are you adding to the "babble"?

Actually accusing us of "babble" is rather insulting. I think we're all asking questions and making points, having an intelligent conversation.

Crazy cloud wrote:So, maybe the best thing to do, is to let go of books neatly on the table - throw away the brain, ...

And maybe it isn't.

How do I determine if it is the best thing to do or not? I guess I can meditate, but I can only do that for a short time each day. What about the rest of the day? It seems to me useful to use the brain to try and become clearer about important issues, to read books, like the "What the Buddha taught" , and ask questions, like "Is there a soul, or soul-like thing?"

So are you saying we should just throw away "What the Buddha taught", and stop asking any questions?

chownah wrote:The criterion for acceptance10. "... 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.

Some people, who are said by many to be wise, believe there is a soul; other people, also said by many to be wise, do not believe in a soul. How do I find out who is wise?

So are you saying we should just throw away "What the Buddha taught", and stop asking any questions?

I just pointed out to what a great teacher has said about talk the talk, and walking the walk, and to me it sounds wise. Maybe i reacted a bit to swift of the words about "throwing away buddistbooks"- it sounded to me like an insult to the teachings it self, and none of us should use words like that about the greatest gifts of all. And maybe you reacted a little to swift on the word "babbeling", witch wasnt ment to hurt anybody in spesific.

Crazy cloud wrote:I just pointed out to what a great teacher has said...

You said that, "he points out many times, that books and all this babbeling about the teachings is not wise". Then you admitted you were unwise to say that ditching the books was bad. So do you now disagree with Ajahn Chah?

I've read some great things about Ajahn Chah, and read some great quotes from him, "still forest pool", and all that. So in this case, I'm guessing that either he had a bad day, no one is perfect, or *you* had a bad day. I can imagine some yuppies babbling on about Buddhism, was he talking about them, or was he really talking about the type of conversation going on in this thread?

And maybe you reacted a little to swift on the word "babbling",...

I don't think I did. If I'm putting down serious thoughts then being accused of "babbling" is about as hurtful as anyone can be to me, far worse than a kick in the groin.

Crazy cloud wrote:I just pointed out to what a great teacher has said...

You said that, "he points out many times, that books and all this babbeling about the teachings is not wise". Then you admitted you were unwise to say that ditching the books was bad. So do you now disagree with Ajahn Chah?

I've read some great things about Ajahn Chah, and read some great quotes from him, "still forest pool", and all that. So in this case, I'm guessing that either he had a bad day, no one is perfect, or *you* had a bad day. I can imagine some yuppies babbling on about Buddhism, was he talking about them, or was he really talking about the type of conversation going on in this thread?

And maybe you reacted a little to swift on the word "babbling",...

I don't think I did. If I'm putting down serious thoughts then being accused of "babbling" is about as hurtful as anyone can be to me, far worse than a kick in the groin.

I said that "babbling" was illchosen word of me, and that I'v reacted to swift and therefore unwise when seeing the word "throw away" put together with "Buddha" or "The three Jewels".

Ven Ajhan Cha, didn't use that word (to my knowledge), but have said different things to different audiences. laypeople get their "scoldings" about doubting and reluctanse to follow the teachings in a more sincere ways - and his own monks get a bit more harsh scoldings, for their lack og sticking to the task, and not use precious time with socialising with each other, and make endless debates about the teachings. He says that these activities is futile, and brings us all more away from progressing, and eventually many of those chose to disrobe at the end. He also mention a few scholar monks that seek his advice and his way of teaching the dhamma- and they were not spared at all, and on one instance mentioned he refused scholars to join in, because their mind was set on the words alone, and not on reading the truth of hearts by meditation.

I'm truly sorry about my wrongdoings, witch have made sufferings for you. No, its not a bad day, just lack of mindfulness on an average nice day - but at lest I have found out where the word "babbling" came from - so here it is (love his poems and wisdom btw):

A master's handiwork cannot be measuredBut still priests wag their tongues explaining the "Way" and babbling about "Zen."This old monk has never cared for false pietyAnd my nose wrinkles at the dark smell of incense before the Buddha.(Ikkyu Sojun)

Sylvester wrote:I'm a little puzzled by your assertion above. Are you saying that Warder's description of the as and hū verbs shows that as verbs are employed in metaphysical statements. I could not find this in the 2nd and 3rd editions of Warder, so unless I've missed something rather esoteric in the 1st ed, this is what Warder says at pp 30 -31 of those 2 editions -

The Verb as

The verb as, " to be ” , asserts with emphasis the existence ofsomething or somebody. (On the other hand hoti is not emphaticand is used also to state attributes : the minister is a priest,etc., and of something which happens or “ becomes ” : a manis/becomes pleased, etc. The usual and more emphatic verbfor “ becomes ” , " comes into existence ” , however, is uppajjati—third conjugation : see Lesson 10). The verb as is veryirregular ; the present tense is as follows :—

[I realize we're being off topic here, so if the moderator wishes to delete this post it's fine with me.]

As I understand Warder there is an ontological distinction between the two verbs -- some would regard that as metaphysical. Atthi emphasizes that a thing “is” – that it exists – whereas hú is used primarily to state attributes, i.e. to state "what" it is as opposed to "that" it is. But since being is so intimately connected with consciousness (viññána) in the Suttas such a distinction doesn't entail the existence of a reality beyond the senses.

As for identifying the Pali root hú with the root bhú, I'm reminded of Ven. Ñanamoli's fascination with the root bhú and the significance it has for the ontology played out in the Pali Suttas. Since I'm not really qualified to express an opinion, I'm inclined to withhold judgement in the matter.

Sylvester wrote:Is this perhaps informed by Ven Nanavira's conception of ākālika? I ask not to dismiss, but simply to acknowledge that I'm too dense to cut through his very dense writings on this.

Yes it is, but it is worth noting that anything akálika is kálika in relation to a thing of the next higher order. (To my knowledge Ven. Ñanavira only uses the word once -- in the Preface to Notes on Dhamma -- and while it is important to understand what he means by it, its meaning is pretty commonplace in Phenomenology.) Ven. Ñanavira points out in several places that there is nothing inherently enlightening about Fundamental Structure. I think he did this knowing that the insight underlying it, that inspires it, really isn't his own, but that of Husserl's. (It should be noted however that Ven. Ñanavira presentation of this insight is ingenious) Guillermo E. Rosado Haddock explains Husserl's theory of categorial intuition as follows:

We have seen that categorial perception is founded on sense perception but does not reduce to it, and that categorial objectualities are found on sensible objects but do not reduce to them. Now, once categorial objectualities of this first level—like sets or relations—are given to us, new categorial intuitions can be built on the corresponding categorial intuitions of the first level, and in such categorial intuitions of the the second level new categorial objectualities of the second level are constituted—e.g., relations between sets, say bijections between sets, and also sets of relations, sets of sets (as, e.g., the power set of a given set), and so forth, In this way, repeating this process indefinitely, a hierarchy of categorial intuitions is obtained and a corresponding hierarchy of categorial objectualities is given to us, so that in categorial intuitions of the nth level categorial objectualities of the nth level are constituted. (Husserl or Frege? pgs 280-281)

Although this might come across as being rather abstract, if one delves into it one finds that it can be verified in experience: it goes to the very heart of how we make sense of our being in the world, how we orient ourselves. And it translates exceedingly well into the thought world of the Pali Suttas. But perhaps one needs to have a deep appreciation of Ven. Ñanavira's writings to come to that conclusion.

I might add as an afterthought that it was the Theory of Categorial Intuition that gave Heidegger the insight to write Being and Time, and that turned Godel into an enthusiastic Phenomenologist. I believe Ven. Ñanavira had a similar epiphany when he used it in his effort to understand portions of the Mahávedallasutta (cf. EL 102) -- as I pointed out earlier I believe the dating of the letter to be significant.

Apology accepted, and I apologize for over-dramatizing. Being accused of babbling is not as bad as being kicked in the groin! You didn't cause me much suffering, if any. I have a book by Ajahn Chah, "Meditation" BP 519S, must read it soon.

chownah wrote:The criterion for acceptance10. "... 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them.

Some people, who are said by many to be wise, believe there is a soul; other people, also said by many to be wise, do not believe in a soul. How do I find out who is wise?

The Buddha gives advise for finding out who is wise in a sutta or maybe even in a couple of suttas but I don't remember which ones. Do you know about accesstoinsight.com?......it is a good place to look for stuff in the Pali Cannon.

Also, this sutta is a well known one and it is widely taken to mean that one should use one's own experience to determine what is right......and I full well know that this idea if implemented will lead to people on both sides of an issue with both sides having relied on their own experiences. This is often explained by pointing out that we all have different paths....and that the Buddha taught that all views must be abandoned to awaken. It is not uncommon that after someone reads this sutta the first thing they ask is how to find a wise person. I think this is because it is not uncommon for people to want to find someone to tell them how things really are and how to think about them. My idea is that a wise person will avoid telling you how things are and will teach you how to look for yourself...Which is what the Buddha is doing in this sutta.chownah

pulga wrote:[I realize we're being off topic here, so if the moderator wishes to delete this post it's fine with me.

I really hope not, as this issue is important enough not to be banished into the Pali hinterlands. It's a subject that crops up every so often, especially among those who are inclined to read into SN 12.15 Nagarjuna's exegesis.

As I understand Warder there is an ontological distinction between the two verbs -- some would regard that as metaphysical. Atthi emphasizes that a thing “is” – that it exists – whereas hú is used primarily to state attributes, i.e. to state "what" it is as opposed to "that" it is. But since being is so intimately connected with consciousness (viññána) in the Suttas such a distinction doesn't entail the existence of a reality beyond the senses.

I agree with the underlined portion, to the extent that a specific syntatic placement of atthi within a sentence/clause determines if (i) it's a vanilla proposition about the presence or possession of a thing, or (ii) one is making an ontic commitment about the thing. It's strikes me as remarkable that the latter usage of atthi can in modern symbolic logic be expressed by the operator ∃(x).

But who are the ones who regard it as having a metaphysical function? I don't see that in Warder, nor in the other grammars I've consulted. The only antecedent I could find for the as root being given a metaphysical function is in the Upanisads. But here's the interesting thing. That function is not attributed to the verb asti, but to the derivative noun/abstract noun Sat.

In any event, I would have to hear a proper response from the "metaphysical" atthi sect on how they will untangle the metaphysical existence of defilements and aggregates, since atthi is also used in the suttas to discuss these subjects.

As for identifying the Pali root hú with the root bhú, I'm reminded of Ven. Ñanamoli's fascination with the root bhú and the significance it has for the ontology played out in the Pali Suttas.

[/quote]

Ooh, tantalising. Prythee supply a reference so that I may poke around in it, if it's not too much trouble.

Sylvester wrote:Ooh, tantalising. Prythee supply a reference so that I may poke around in it, if it's not too much trouble.

From the Guide:

46/1 'Seeing' (dassana) as a technical term means the 1st path, at whichmoment nibbdna is first 'seen'. 'Keeping in being' (bhavana—caus. subst.fm. \/bhu to be) is the corresponding technical term for the remaining threepaths, which 'keep that vision of nibbana in being' by repeating it. Thislatter word has thus an important ontological significance.

453/2 This is an instance where it would be incorrect to translate bhavatiby 'becomes'. NettiA senses an ontological difficulty when it says ' "Iscurd (dadhi bhavati)" is said according to the Identity Guide-Line (Ekatta-naya—see Vis. 585) or according to the Metaphor of Non-Breach (abhedopacdra—see Ppn ch. viii, n. 65), but not in any other way; for milk is not (na hoti)curd, which is why "and yet there is no simultaneous occurrenceof milk and curd" is said' (p. 115). To translate by 'becomes'leaves nothing for the commentary to explain and conceals the difficultyof deciding the 'first moment' when it is curd.

843. Herein, what is the type of Thread dealing with corruption,dealing with penetration and dealing with the Adept ?This "world" is born to anguish, and subject to [painful] contact;<It is a sickness> that it calls self;For however it conceives [it]*'Tis [ever] other than that.Maintaining its being otherwise [than it conceives],*The world clings to being, expectantly relishes only being.[But] what it relishes brings fear,And what it fears is pain> (Ud. 32-3; Pe 26, 223).This is corruption.

843/1 The readings here seem preferable to those in the PTS Udana text.The whole passage is of much ontological interest. It is very difficult torender adequately.

From "Life of the Buddha"

I am an All-transcender, 8

"All-transcender" ($abbdbhibhu)\ a derivative of the root bhu (to be), inthe sense of "beyond being" or "who has overcome all being." Abhibhu (whichwill be encountered again later) is paraphrased by some translators with "mastery"(as in abhibhdyatana) or "Overcomer" as an epithet of Mahd-brahmd. It can be taken as one of the instances of the use of a current word by the Buddhain a transforming context.

His note to the Brahamanimantanikasutta

7. The emphasis is all on the notion of being ("to be or not to be"). Theallotment of utterances and the readings are taken from the Burmese ed., whichis more reliable here than any other and has napahosim instead of nahosi. All theclauses from that with "earth" down to "all" should be read (e.g.) thus: sabbamkho aham brahme sabbato abhinnaya yavata sabbassa sabbattena ananubhutam,tad abhinnaya sabbam napahosim, sabbasmim napahosim, sabbato napahosim,sabbam me ti napahosim, sabbam nabhivadim ("Having had direct knowledgeof all as all ...."). In both this sutta and D. 11 the line, Vinnanam anidassanamanantam sabbatopabham ("The consciousness that makes no showing ...") isspoken by the Buddha (this page and also p. 150). The line has puzzled many.The Majjhima Commentary allows much greater latitude than the Dlgha Commentaryand puts forward a derivation from the root bhu (to be) for pabham(or paham). Following this hint, though not quite on the lines suggested bythe Corny., we could take sabbatopabham to be made up of sabbato and acontracted form of the present participle of pahoti (= pabhavati), i.e. paham(= pabham). This ties up with the preceding sabbato abhinnaya ... sabbamnapahosim; however, the sense then requires a suppressed negative, i.e sabbatopaham= sabbato apaham ("claiming no being apart from all"). The letters hand bh are easily mistaken for each other in Sinhalese. In D. 11, in which thesame line occurs, the Buddha is probably quoting from this discourse. We havehere material for the nucleus of an interesting ontological study.

In addition his preferred translation for sambhava is "positive being", though I really don't know his reasons for rendering it so.

His translation of the Majjhima has been revised twice with virtually all of his notes omitted. If only out of curiosity I'd love to see his original draft translation.